An Open Letter to Anita Sarkeesian

Dear Anita Sarkeesian,

      I have almost no respect for you anymore, mostly due to the tweet where you say that sexism against men is impossible (though there are admittedly other factors).  I now have the opportunity to give you the chance to gain my respect back.  How?  It's rather simple:  You will just have to explain to me just how this music video is NOT sexist against men:

Note that I am not talking about the lyrics, here.  I am not talking about the song which displays rage against an ex.  I am talking about the abuse of a male by a group of women that is laughed about.  It is abhorrent.  Why is it acceptable to tie up a man, smear lipstick on his face, forcibly cut his hair, break eggs on his head, cover him in flour, and take a picture of it?

WHAT exactly makes this not sexist against men?  I can guaran-dam-tee that, were the roles reversed and it was a woman being abused by a group of men, you and I would be screaming "THIS IS MYSOGYNY!" from adjacent rooftops.  You and me both would be decrying this video as an abhorrent glorification of abuse of women.  So why does it not work that way when the victim is male?  Why don't you scream "THIS IS MISANDRY!" from the rooftop adjacent to me?  Is it because of the "+ power" part that you think is required?  Well then WHERE IS THE LACK OF POWER?  She's a damned celebrity, this was made in a professional studio, and was shared by a professional promoter.  Is it because it's not a "grand narrative"?  The video I linked to has nearly FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND VIEWS, and it is not the only copy out there!  How is this not some "grand narrative"?  And if it's alright because it's a guy getting abused, doesn't that say something about the culture, which is oh-so important to that "+ power" part of the equation according to the link you yourself provided later on?

Speaking of that link, even it disagrees with you somewhat:

Men are undoubtedly affected by sexism, but because of their privilege they don’t experience it the same way that women do; this difference in experience is acknowledged through the distinction of sexism versus gender-based prejudice.

Now, I know that you're going to try and claim that this falls under that "gender-based prejudice" part, but does it really?   Just because men have a history of being the ones in charge, that somehow softens this action?  Really?  Just because sexism isn't experienced in the same way DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN SEXISM ISN'T HAPPENING.  And even if it does, that does not change the fact that IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IN THE GODDAMNED FIRST PLACE.  Institutionalized vs non-institutionalized sexism is a distinction without a difference:  the end result is the same.  So please, explain to me just how this isn't goddamned sexist.

John, Interrupted

First, thank you Bart Ehrman, for your wonderfully titled book Jesus, Interrupted which inspired the title of this blog post.

Note that this post is not about John.  Or the bible.  Other than that my reading of it has been interrupted while reading through John.


What interrupted this, you might ask?
Why, some Darren Wilson grand jury documents.  Goody!  I've heard about how softball they are, and now I get to see it for myself.  Expect a rather large bit of commentary.

Also it seems appropriate to note the creeping amounts of antisemitism and pro-Roman themes going from Mark to Matt to John.

Ken Ham Can't Keep his Propaganda Straight.

Alright, so you all remember the Nye-Ham debate a while back?  Specifically, the parts where Ham bitches about "observational science" and "historical science"?  Well, now he's applying it to climate change (link goes to RawStory article that links to his blog.  I refuse to link directly to that shill).

In his blog, he complains that scientists are using "historical science" to say that humans are the cause of climate change. As you'll recall, he defines this strange "historical science" thing to be "our interpretation of the data as opposed to the data itself" - a definition that directly conflicts with the claim that it is "science" to begin with.  But of course, there's a small problem.

That problem is the actual fucking data.  It's there.  This is not "interpretation": to say that it is is akin to saying that we interpret that the sky is fucking blue.  We are the cause, get over it you Australian slab of pig meat. This is why we call bullshit on your "observational vs. historical" bullshit.


Also, small note regarding CDMTGM:  I will be skipping over Luke to deal with John, and then revisit Luke and Acts together to properly transition to the Epistles.

CDTGM Part 4: Mark

Mark was rather sparse on the moral teachings.  It was almost exclusively Jesus healing people and telling them not to tell anyone (and of course they blab anyway).  What moral teachings it has are simply repeats, same with Jesus' actions (though it would be more accurate to say that Matt is repeating Mark).  We have a retelling of the fig tree - this time explicitly out of season - a retelling of the Legion cast-out - this time explicitly giving the pigs an owner - a restatement of the anti-divorce decree, a repeat of the racist comparison to dogs, this time with a Roman and not a Samaritan, and a reaffirmation that Jesus is using parables to deceive.

It was rather disappointing.  I expected this of John, not Mark.  Then again, the Jesus of John won't shut the hell up, so I suppose that one will work...

Next up will be Luke.  I will not include Acts, despite it being the sequel.  I want to do Jesus first, then deal with Paul and the Disciples.

CDTGM Part 3: Matthew

Apologies for this one.  It's late because (1) It's absolutely fucking stunning how much bad shit is in the Sermon on the Mount - said to be one of the most moral parts of the damn Bible, and (2) writer's block.  Anyway, let's get right into it, starting with the part that I made a tiny post about, and extrapolate more from it.

A Strange Thought for you next Whenever 1

This may or may not become a semi-regular thing here, but here's a strange thought for you:  I can prove that you are more powerful than God is supposed to be.

Wait, what?

Exactly.  Now hold on a minute.

God can create collections of mass that we call "rocks", yes?  Commonly, when asked that if god can create  a collection of matter (called "a rock" in the scenario) so heavy he can't lift it, the answer is usually "No, that's logically impossible."

Now, I will grant that I cannot create a rock, but is that your final answer?  That god cannot create a collection of matter that he himself cannot lift?  That such a task is logically impossible.

Because if that is your final answer, not only am I more powerful than your god, I am also apparently able to defy logic.  Because I (and you) can create collections of matter so heavy that I (and you) cannot lift it.

I hate writing sometimes

As the title states, I REALLY hate writing sometimes.   Right now, I can't get what I want to say for part 3 to come out right.  STILL.  But right now that's neither here nor there, cuz I need a favor from you guys.

See, this one European pianist wants the world to forget that he sucked balls during a concert four years ago, so he's suing the Washington Post over a "right to be forgottern" put forth by E.U. courts to make them take down a review that's four years old.  What say we show them how it's done in America , hmm?  That's where you come in.

I need you to spread these two links as far across the internet as you possibly can.  The first one is the original "this guy sucks" artilce, and the other is the "this guy doesn't want us to remember that he sucks" article.  What say we exercise our "right to remember"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/05/AR2010120503272.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/31/pianist-asks-the-washington-post-to-remove-a-concert-review-under-the-e-u-s-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/?wpmm=AG0003409


Ah, you want a little more detail?  Well, I'll try to summarize the original article, as I've already given you the jist of he other one.  Apparantly, this

Dejan Lazic (This was intentional)

guy had a concert with the Atlanta Symphony where he played a piano rendition of a violin concerto that was, according to the WaPo, "attention-getting, large scale and a little empty."  He then performed another recital that was of similar lackluster performance:  one where he spent too much time with theatrical flair rather than the actual music.

Normally I wouldn't care, but this guy has triggered the Streissand effect, AND is attempting to stifle free speech.  Fuck. Him.